Posted on 03/10/2009 10:16:05 AM PDT by Free America52
. . . . t any rate I got to this meeting with Scalia. I stood there the whole time right by the mic, just to make sure I have an opportunity to ask a question. Only four lawyers out of about 300 in the audience got to ask their questions and I was lucky to be one of them. I told Scalia, that I was an attorney that filed Lightfoot v Bowen that Chief Justice Roberts distributed for conference on Jan 23 and now i represent 9 State reps and 120 military officers, many of them high ranked and I want to know if they will hear Quo Warranto and if they would hear it on Original Jurisdiction, if I bring Hawaii as an additional defendant to unseal the records and ascertain Obama's legitimacy for presidency.
(Excerpt) Read more at defendourfreedoms.us ...
Thank you LucyT!!
You said — Your credulity is not high enough to float this: “The only problem with that is you’re ignoring the fact that I didn’t vote for Obama and did for the McCain/Palin ticket.”
—
Well, considering that all that anyone here, on the Free Republic board, has is simply “posting” to one another — one could say that no one who posts here really is what they post. We could all “make up” stories about one another and have a load of fun that way... LOL...
All that would amount to is a convenient way for people to make up stories about one another, just to dismiss one argument or another. That would really get nowhere fast, and make for a real “intelligent” board, all right... :-)
It’s a good thing that most people just discuss the issues at hand and use information that is commonly available to all people.
You said — “Like, nobody believes you...duh.”
Well, the posting record that I have for campaigning against Obama and about the documentation issue is here on this board... LOL...
But, more “basic” to what you just said — is to say that anyone could then simply say that you or someone else or anyone on Free Republic did not vote for McCain and voted for Obama (no matter what they said) simply because you find it a more convenient way to dismiss an argument... :-)
Thanks, BR. I can assure everyone that tonight’s broadcast will be anthrax free.
___________________________________________
File under shameless promotion if you wish, but unpsun’s internet radio show last night was supposed to have Phil Berg on but got basically bumped to tonight for a “glitch”, given Dr. OT’s assertion of other technical problems, I go ahead here. See:
http://investigatingobama.blogspot.com/
Monday, March 9, 2009
UPDATE: Eligibility Challengers Phil Berg, Tuesday 8pm ET & Mario Apuzzo, Thr.; Streaming Interviews & Archive
Our carrier, blogtalkradio.com had a rare (I trust) technical glitch and since we were given 15 minutes for “The Awakening,” this Monday, Philip Berg has graciously agreed to be our guest at the same time, tomorrow, this Tuesday, 8pm ET,,,5pm PT. We trust that, unlike Barack Obama, a.k.a., Barry Soetoro, blogtalkradio.com’s problems are behind them.
The Awakening with Hanen & Arlen
3/10/2009 8:00 PM — Streaming Link
[go to site]
Philip Berg will be our guest and we will be discussing Hollister v Soetoro and the arrogant memorandum US District Court Judge James Robertson issued. Also, did Obama’s lawyers really say the original birth certificate could be embarrassing to Obama and the Democratic Party? Why is there so much obstruction in these cases against Barry Soetoro aka Barack Obama?
Call-in Number, to listen, or press 1 to ask a question: (646) 727-2652
Well, that’s an interesting prediction, considering “who” are the people who are in Congress now... i.e., Democrats for a very large majority. You’ve got more faith in Democrats than I do... I’m glad you do. I simply say it’s *not a given* that they will do such a thing. You seem to have great faith in Democrats, at least more “faith” than I have in Democrats...
As of three weeks ago, FOX news reported a Rasmussen poll that the Rats in Congress would LOSE 40 seats. Imagine now what would happen to them after SCOTUS found Obama not qualified to be president and they refused to remove him?
Most of them would be seeing their political careers getting squashed in the next election if they refused to remove the Usurper. It would be the 10 billion pound gorilla sitting on their heads. Who do you think they would throw under THE BUS, their butts or Obama's?
You said — “Think again. There are three other ways Obama can be removed from office other than impeachment and conviction by Congress and election.”
Well, from what I see there is the Impeachment/Conviction route by Congress, or there is the voting public removing him in an election. Those are the ways I see (at least legal ways, aside from him dying or something...).
Now..., I have seen others commenting on other ways, but I don’t believe they’re “real solutions”... LOL...
One example that I’ve seen posted several times on various threads is that the U.S. Military will realize that Obama is not qualified to be Commander in Chief because he’s not qualified under the Constitution, so they will take action on their own, surround the White House with tanks, and demand Obama be removed from office. Now, that’s one way I’ve seen posted.
Another way I’ve seen posted is that some judge, somewhere in the United States will remove Obama from office, in a court decision and order a U.S. Marshal to escort Obama out of the White House, by this court order (and in some variations of this scenario, it may be in handcuffs, doncha know... LOL...).
And then I’ve seen posted another way where a court in Washington DC has the power to remove a President from office and a case is going to it to do that very thing. It’s supposed to have the “special power” to do so...
—
Well, all these things are overactive imaginations fueled by the intense desire to get Obama out of office, no matter how fanciful it is...
They just aren’t “reality” which is why this issue has not been getting anywher in terms of getting Obama out of office... All they do is simply generate a lot of posting here on Free Republic and talking amongst those of that persuasion. Not much more than that...
Off hand I would say that the electorate doesn't care about most cases the SC hears.
I'm not the one always posting LOL on every thread that questions O's eligibility, but if you want to question my vote just go for it.
I don't like to see dreks and their dribble to go unopposed so I crap on their posts every once in awhile.
You said — “As of three weeks ago, FOX news reported a Rasmussen poll that the Rats in Congress would LOSE 40 seats. Imagine now what would happen to them after SCOTUS found Obama not qualified to be president and they refused to remove him?”
Well, that’s encouraging news, to balance out the power in Congress. I presume that’s the House of Representatives (which is usually meant when they say “Congress”). If that turns out to be so, I like that news... :-)
In terms of them being “intimidated” and pressured by the reality of keeping their seats in Congress — I would have thought that this very thing would have also been important in the Clinton Trial. But, it appears to have had no effect on them. It was shameful that for such a *documented* and *absolute crime* of Clinton’s — that *anyone* could have voted “not to convict”. That really tells a lot about them....
But, having said all that above — we’re still in the “theoretical” in that none of this has been shown and it’s not guaranteed that it will ever be shown. I think that people will still be attempting this when the next Presidential election comes around. And that it will take an election to get rid of Obama.
Now, just as I said before Obama’s inauguration — here on Free Republic — I did not believe any of those things I was hearing from some FReepers would happen (in preventing him from taking office). And there was a very long list of things that were supposed to stop Obama from taking office. None of them ever happened. And we’re in the same situation now — in which I’m going to say that “none of it will happen” — from what I can see.
But, the “proof” will be — if we get to the next election for President, and we see that nothing happens. I’m betting that we’ll be to the next election and I’ll still be posting that — indeed — nothing has happened that many were *wishing* would happen. And so, “we shall see...” when the next election comes up...
—
You said — “Most of them would be seeing their political careers getting squashed in the next election if they refused to remove the Usurper. It would be the 10 billion pound gorilla sitting on their heads. Who do you think they would throw under THE BUS, their butts or Obama’s?”
That’s a nice story — *if* it were only true. At the present — you’re only writing “fiction” — because it’s not the reality of the situation. You’re saying that if this happened and that happened then finally Democrats would be forced to kick Obama out of office to save themselves.
The only problem is that you’ve got a series of “if” and “if” and “if”... You’re writing “fiction” at the present time...
>Clinton never stopped being President — even though, theoretically — he might have been removed from office at a particular time.
>The same thing would apply to Obama, too...
Would it? If Obama is not Constitutionally qualified, then he NEVER WAS president. Period. Also, We The People, would have EVERY right to call “Foul!”/”Fraud!” and “Conspiracy!” (Bcause, how could such a thing be kept from the public light EXCEPT by conspiracy and a GROSS, CRIMINAL negligence of those in office whose job it is to verify such.)
You said — “I’m not the one always posting LOL on every thread that questions O’s eligibility, but if you want to question my vote just go for it.”
Well, you’ll notice that it’s not me who says that someone did not vote the way they said, just because I want to “make it up” as an argument against what they’re saying in their post.
That’s the methodology of others who can’t defend their way out of their Obama Derangement Sydrome... :-)
Don’t forget to scream cover up, every one from Dean to Pelosi has had a hand in verifying Obama’s eligibility.
If indeed a fraud was elected they had the responsibility to ensure Obama was eligible, if they knew and did nothing about it, we are looking at the potential destruction of the heads of the DNC.
You are a moonbat and I am ending my part of this conversation.
> Think again. There are three other ways Obama can be removed from office other than impeachment and conviction by Congress and election.
Natural death (or incapacitation), grand jury conviction (ie for murder as another capital offense), and assassination?
And you only response is ‘Obama Derangement Syndrome’? Bwahahahaha, you leftists are so transparent. Is it time to post your deceit regarding the biblical story of ‘The Good Samaritan’, again? Such a leftist classic!
You said — “Would it? If Obama is not Constitutionally qualified, then he NEVER WAS president. Period.”
Well, you’ll notice that we still have a “21st President” of the United States and he’s not been taken out of the “line-up” of Presidents, even though he was not qualified to be President, per the Constitution. That’s been documented by many people, over a period of time.
More recently, in light of the Obama qualifications issue coming up, Leo Donofrio has documented it again. He very plainly makes it clear that Chester Arthur was not qualified, per the Constitution to be President of the United States.
And furthermore, there were people who were accusing Arthur of not being qualified — at that very time he was serving (and before he became President). They just couldn’t prove it. And Arthur covered up a lot of his documentation and destroyed other stuff and made it almost impossible for anyone to find out. Yet, information has come out and it has been proven that he was not qualified to be President.
BUT, in all that, he’s still considered to have been a *President* of the United States and nothing he ever passed as a law has ever been overturned because he was “not” President.
So, we have a clear example in our nation’s history of a President not being qualified and yet, nothing changed in his Presidency as a result of not being qualified.
—
You said — “Also, We The People, would have EVERY right to call “Foul!”/”Fraud!” and “Conspiracy!” (Bcause, how could such a thing be kept from the public light EXCEPT by conspiracy and a GROSS, CRIMINAL negligence of those in office whose job it is to verify such.)”
The problem is always in the word — *if* — and there is where no one has been able to prove it. I would agree that — *if* — he were not qualified then people have every right to cry foul/fraud and conspiracy. NOW..., the problem is — you’ve got to prove the accusation of the “if”.
That’s always been the problem from the beginning. You see, it’s not an *absolute given* that this is the case. The reason why it’s an “if” — is precisely because it’s unknown and it could very well be a “wrong if” — and he can be qualified just as easily. An “accusation” doesn’t make something true. The “proof” of it, on the other hand — would make it true.
The “if factor” means that the accusation could just as easily be wrong. In fact, the longer it goes where someone cannot prove the “if” — it means it becomes less and less likely to be true (i.e., the accusation being true). That’s the problem you face now...
You said — “And you only response is ‘Obama Derangement Syndrome’? Bwahahahaha, you leftists are so transparent. Is it time to post your deceit regarding the biblical story of ‘The Good Samaritan’, again? Such a leftist classic!”
It’s classic Obama Derangement Syndrome to deny someone’s vote, per what they said — simply because someone doesn’t like the poster’s arguments. Yes, that’s exactly in the realm of Obama Derangement Syndrome, for sure... :-)
And, in addition, I see you’re like a “one-trick pony” — only beating one dead horse that you like to beat all the time... LOL...
I can count on you always beating your favorite story...
What I would find shocking is if I could ever get a rational argument out of you on the issue of Obama’s qualifications. That would bowl me over.... LOL...
>we are looking at the potential destruction of the heads of the DNC.
No, I should hope we would be, in such a scenario, looking at the ropes tightening around their necks, because, such actions would inarguably be opening the doors to a [valid] attack by fostering weakness. Simply put, they would be inarguably traitors, frauds, perjurers, ... and I’m probably forgetting several other good charges we could slap them with.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.